Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by freediver | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

freediver

Every few versions I would check Firefox on macOS just to see if they make any progress with battery drain.

And... Firefox 79 with one active tab is taking 6x more energy than Safari with 20+ tabs.

https://imgur.com/a/LyhnbKZ

Maybe it is better on other OSes, but on macOS nothing beats Webkit in terms of performance.

Not to mention the home page bloat - Firefox is starting to look like cnn of browsers.

View on HN

In your screenshot I see some extensions in Firefox. Please go to about:performance and see the energy impact of your extensions.

I just compared clean Firefox install with Safari on macOS and they both show energy impact 0.1

Looking at about:performance when browser is idle, it doesn't do anything, but as soon as I start doing something with tabs, some extensions start to do some work. If a little bit more power draw is the price to pay for having no ads while browsing (with ublock origin), I am willing to pay it.

What if you could have both webkit and ublock? :wink: get in touch if you want to try the alpha of what we are building.

One thought, cant one reason to the difference when you checked be that Firefox is the active application and have focus? And do you maybe have any addons in Firefox? Extensions can give bigger energy impact, you can check that under about:performance. Anyways I think both have low energy impact even if safari happens to be abit lower. Personally I use Firefox on mac and can many times have 100+ tabs and it works without any problems.

It could also be mention that Firefox now use macos coreanimation that drastically improved Firefox battery performance [1]. So give it a real test again, Firefox is really awesome and needs all support :) We need bigger diversity among webbrowsers, not just chromium based.

[1] https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2019/10/22/dramatically-red...

The active application was "Activity monitor" as you can see on the screenshot. I did indeed have two Firefox extensions active (vs 7 on Safari). I disabled them and got same results. But everyone should be able to easily perform a similar test for themselves and compare.

Safari has been frustratingly aggressive for me. I was working with a fairly heavy Google Spreadsheet and Safari would need to refresh/reload every time it lost focus.

Between Chrome, Firefox, Safari and their plugins it's a dance to get the desired behavior and efficiency. Lazy loading of pages (when you have multiple tabs and close/reopen) can either be really efficient (because they don't even load the page) or annoying (if you don't have Internet or they change/remove the page when you go back to read it).

There has been progress. Firefox is pretty close to Chrome in power usage on macOS now. Safari is still streets ahead of every other browser on power usage though.

Is the in-house software just better at fitting the power usage metrics, or does the battery actually last longer with Safari when you let it physically drain out?

The latter. I'm having trouble finding an unbiased benchmark right now, but Safari is quite a bit less of a battery hog than either Chrome or Firefox.

Ah, I had no idea this was a problem for Firefox in particular. One thing I've noticed is my browser uses a lot of energy (fans turn on) when I get on a video call through the browser, and now I'm curious if switching to Chrome or Safari for calls can resolve that.

For me, the big drain was running Google Chat in Firefox. I switched running GChat using Google’s app and that solved the problem for me. Now the only big drain is WebEx. (This is a work laptop, and my work uses GSuite and WebEx.)

The "Energy Impact" values in that screenshot are almost all the same as "% CPU", so energy impact is basically just computed as % CPU?

You're complaining that FF is using 1.3% CPU while in the foreground?

It was in the background, same as Safari. Still the point was, whatever the cpu usage was, it was 6x more than Safari, which when using laptop battery and browser running almost all the time, means a world of difference.

home page bloat? person woman man camera tv?

Care to share more details?

By default, the Firefox new tab page has ads and sponsored content, which neither Chrome nor Safari have. This "feature" certainly decreases trust in Firefox as the more privacy-friendly option, although it's easy to disable for experienced users.

Why would adverts decrease your trust in Firefox in terms of privacy?

Targeted advertisements like the ones built into Firefox's new tab page are the exact kind of thing that privacy-conscious people like to block. When I recommend Firefox to a less-technical friend or relative and suggest that they use uBlock Origin or another powerful ad and tracking blocker, it's awfully ironic that the default new tab page is full of targeted advertisements. It's purely perception, of course, but it's the kind of thing that almost certainly isn't helping Firefox compete against Chrome.

I mean this:

https://imgur.com/a/aYutjsO

Having to see mentions of Nazi camps on my home page or seeing a notification for Facebook containers although I don't use Facebook. All that bloat being enabled by default is troublesome and goes against very principles Mozilla advocates.

Right, you mean the content Mozilla shoves into new tab. I disabled this the first time I saw it. Not going down in the browser I use. Should it ever be impossible to disable, I'll switch browser in a blink.

So... disable it?

It is two clicks to remove that entire "Highlights" section.

I think you missed the point of “behavior enabled by design”. Of course I can remove it, as can someone who just stepped into a pile of poo clean their shoes. We’d just prefer that the pile of poo didn’t exist by default.

No "principle Mozilla advocates" says that the start page should default to blank.

It should not default to ads, at least.

Very little of the content on the default start page is ever paid advertising. AFAIK it's a few of the Highlights, sometimes.

So they look like ads, which erode trust from users, and they don't even get paid for them. That just makes it more stupid.

They're mostly thumbnails of Web sites people have recently visited or visited frequently, i.e. they look familiar. I don't think they look like ads to most people, and I certainly wouldn't conclude they do without actual data.

I actually like some of the pocket articles on the new page tab. I do have to watch out that I don’t get distracted to often :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com